Dominus R v Burridge
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 93 E.R. 720
COURTS OF CHANCERY, KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
[593] dominus hex vers. burridge. Challenging the array of a special jury for defect of hundredors is a contempt of B. R. but challenging the polls is not(l). L. Raym. 1364. 8 Mod. 245. S. C. cited And. 52. N.B. The information was against him as Mayor of Tiverton for absenting at the election day. In an information for a misdemeanor there was a rule for a special jury to be struck by the Master, who was to chuse forty-eight out of the freeholders' book, out of which each side was to strike twelve, and the remaining twenty-four were to be returned for the trial of the cause. At the trial the defendant challenged the array for want of hundredors, and the challenge was allowed; whereupon the prosecutor moved for an attachment against the defendant, as being guilty of a contempt of the rule; and upon the motion it appeared, that the defendant's agent in striking out his twelve had expunged all the hundredors. The defendant's counsel insisted, it was no contempt, because they were not restrained by the rule; and mentioned several precedents, where the rules have been express, that the defendant should strike out twelve, and not challenge the array for want of hundredors. In Queen Elizabeth's time, Regina v. Lord Hunsdon (a) was so. Rex v. Kiffin, 29 Car. 2. 3 Keb. 340. The Attorney General moved to add those words, but it was denied. Rex v. Sherrard, I Geo. those words are added ex assensu. Sed per Curiam. This is a plain comtempt. Does not he defeat the rule, by insisting, that the twenty-four, who the rule says shall be returned to try the cause, shall not try it? Suppose a submission to arbitration be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v Esmonde and Others
...N. S. 1276. Boyse v. RossboroughENR 6 H. L. C. 56. Scott v. ScottENR 3 Sw. & Tr. 319. Rex v. JohnsonENR 2 Str. 1001. Rex v. BurridgeENR 1 Str. 593; 2 Raym. 1363. Kynaston v. Mayor of ShrewsburyENR Andrews, 85. Aldborough v. BlandUNK 7 Ir. C. L. R. 570. The Queen v. O'Connell Arm. & Trev. 11......
-
O'Connell, in Error v Mansfield
...v. LewisENR 10 Price, 181. Broom v. Nice 2 Stra. 872. Rex v. GriffinENR 1 Keb. 740. Rex v. JohnsonENR 2 Str. 1000. Rex v. BurridgeENR 1 Str. 593. Morrison v. HarmerENR 3 Bing. N. C. 766. Edwards v. BellENR 1 Bing. 403. Clarke v. TaylorENR 2 Bing. N. C. 654. E. T. 1846. Exch. Chant. ertinque......
-
The King against Edmonds and Others
...One other instance only of challenge of the array of a jury nominated under a rule of Court was mentioned, viz. The King v. Burridge (1 Str. 593). This was before the statute; and it appears to have been thought that the rule of Court could not dispense with the rule of law as to hundredors......
-
THE QUEEN, at the prosecution of JOHN LITTLE, Mayor of Belfast, v JOHN REA
...Ir. Law Rep. 53. Ray v. Conrahy 1 Cr. & Dix, Cir. Cas. 56. O'Connell v. The QueenENR 11 Cl. & Fin. 247, 248, 249, 354. Rex v. BurridgeENR 1 Str. 593. O'Connell v. The Queen 11 Cl. & Fin. (Lord Campbell judgment) p. 407. Aldborough v. BlandIR 7 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 571. Gillespie v. Cumming 1 C......